Samantha Loveridge
Employee
7011380

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 13 October 2025

Published date: 10 February 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Wolferstans LLP

Address(es): 60-66 North Hill Plymouth PL4 8EP England

Firm ID: 811913

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Decision

I have decided as follows:

1.1 To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Ms Loveridge of this decision:

1.1.1 no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

1.1.2 no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor's practice;

1.1.3 no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her;

1.1.4 no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;

1.1.5 no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and

1.1.6 no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body

1.1.7 except in accordance with the SRA's prior written permission.

1.2 The section 43 order in respect of Ms Loveridge shall be published.

1.3 Ms Loveridge is ordered to pay the sum of £600 in relation to the SRA's costs of investigating this matter.

Reasons/basis

Reasons

6.1 I will now turn to the actual conduct in the allegations (and set out at paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.2 above). I will take each in turn.

6.2 It is alleged that Ms Loveridge misled her lender client, Landbay, that she was holding a signed mortgage deed and loan agreement at completion, when she was not.

Findings

On 6 November 2024, following completion the day before, Ms Loveridge told her assistant to upload unsigned documents to the Landbay portal. On 13 November, upon receipt of the signed loan agreement and mortgage deed dated 5 November 2024 from her client, she directed her assistant to upload them to the Landbay portal. These documents had been signed on 13 November and backdated to 5 November. On the following day Ms Loveridge e-mailed Landbay stating that the recently uploaded documents had been signed and executed on or before completion, when she knew that was not true.

6.3 Ms Loveridge accepts that, although she relied on and trusted her assistants to ensure all documents required for completion had been executed prior to completion, she had overall conduct of the matter and bears overall responsibility for the oversight of the missing documents.

6.4 Ms Loveridge said she made an honest mistake. She says she had a lot on her mind at the time, that she was struggling personally and professionally. She did not intend to mislead anyone.

6.5 I appreciate that at the time Ms Loveridge may have had a lot on her mind. However, when she became aware that signed documents were not on the file, she was aware that there was a risk to the lender's financial interest. Instead of notifying the firm and/or lender, to prevent anyone from finding out about the error, on 6 November 2024 (the day after completion) she instructed Hannah Gomm to upload documents to the Landbay portal.

6.6 She knew they were unsigned, as copies were only sent to the client for signature after completion had happened. She uploaded unsigned copies to try and buy some further time before the lender found out, by which time she hoped she would have received the signed documents from the clients.

6.7 Once the signed documents were received on 13 November 2024, Ms Loveridge instructed her assistant to send them to Landbay.

6.8 There appears to be a dispute about the content of the email Ms Loveridge instructed Hannah Gomm to send to Landbay on 13 November 2024. Ms Loveridge says she instructed Hannah Gomm to say:- 'may have uploaded incomplete versions'. She says Hannah Gomm did not follow her instructions and wrote, 'uploaded in error' – in any event neither is a true reflection of the events. Ms Loveridge knew she was not providing accurate information to the lender. She accepts she did this to mislead the lender into believing that she had had the signed documents on 5 November 2024, when she did not.

6.9 Ms Loveridge's actions are further exacerbated on 14 November 2024 when she confirms to Landbay that the documents had been executed in line with their instructions and dated on the completion date, when they had not. As stated above, they had only been received the day before (13 November 2024).

6.10 Ms Loveridge said in her comments during her disciplinary hearing and in her representations that her first consideration was to protect the firm as opposed to ensuring the lender was provided with accurate information and their financial interest was protected.

6.11 Ms Loveridge said she had not acted for Landbay before, so may not have been familiar with their requirements. However, guidance from Landbay was on the file, Ms Loveridge was an experienced conveyancer and would have been aware it was necessary for documents, such as a mortgage deed and loan agreement, to be executed before completion. Without these documents the financial interest of the lender is at risk.

6.12 When she became aware the matter had completed but the signed mortgage deed and loan agreement were not on file she should have asked her employers or the mortgage lender of the correct course of action. She did not want them to know about her mistake, and she misled her lender client to try to buy time to cover it up.

6.13 Therefore, I find this allegation proven.

On the 13 November 2024 Ms Loveridge directed her assistant to submit a false completion date on the Help to Buy ISA portal.

6.14 Ms Loveridge denies this allegation and submits the following: 6.14.1 She accepts she instructed Amy Elliott to input a future completion date, she did not intend to mislead the Help to Buy scheme but acted as she did in the hope it would generate the bonus for the client.

6.14.2 She knew they were inputting an incorrect date but wanted to open a line of enquiry to seek advice from the Help to Buy scheme on how they could claim the bonus after completion.

6.14.3 She thought she had instructed Amy Elliott to make it clear in the narrative that completion had already occurred. This was not done to mislead, but to enable a conversation and submit relevant documentation.

6.14.4 She was not familiar with the scheme rules and relied on her assistants and paralegals to manage this process.

6.15 I have considered these arguments in full. I do not find them a credible explanation for the following reasons: 6.15.1 Ms Loveridge said she was not familiar with the Help to Buy portal and used this to open lines of enquiry. Regardless of whether she was familiar with the portal or not, she was familiar with the Help to Buy scheme because the firm confirmed during Ms Loveridge's disciplinary interview that she had acted on 68 files which involved Help to Buy over three years. Therefore, she would have been aware that the bonus must be requested before completion. The government scheme rules are clear that the bonus must be used for the completion of the property purchase, and it must be claimed on the closing statement of the account.

6.15.2 Ms Loveridge also signed a conveyancer adherence agreement, agreeing to be bound by the Help to Buy scheme rules. It is a fundamental aspect of legal practice to review documents carefully before signing them.

6.15.3 Even if Ms Loveridge didn't know how to contact the Help to Buy scheme, a Google search gives their telephone number.

6.15.4 Ms Loveridge knew on 8 November 2024 that a mistake had been made but did not report matters to the firm's compliance team until 14 November 2024, after the request with the false date had been submitted and the Help to Buy scheme had confirmed it was not going to pay the client's bonus. It was not until 20 November 2024 that clear information was provided to the Help to Buy scheme.

6.16 On the balance of probabilities, I find it unlikely that Ms Loveridge entered a false completion date simply to open lines of enquiry. Ms Loveridge misled the Help to Buy scheme that completion was due to take place on a date in the future, when she knew this wasn't the case. Therefore, I find this allegation proven.

Dishonesty

6.17 I am asked to find that Ms Loveridge's conduct was dishonest. To determine whether she acted dishonestly, I must first ascertain what she genuinely knew or believed the facts to be at the time. It is not necessary for that belief to have been reasonable, only for it to have been genuinely held.

6.18 I am satisfied, and it is borne out in the evidence, that Ms Loveridge's genuine knowledge and belief at the time was as follows:

6.18.1 Ms Loveridge knew when she instructed Hannah Gomm on 6 November 2024, that the documents she was sending to the lender were unsigned. She did not want the lender or the firm to query her actions on the file and tried to buy herself time by uploading unsigned documents in the hope that by the time the lender realised, she would have received the signed documents from the client. She then told the lender she had uploaded the wrong documents in error.

6.18.2 Ms Loveridge clearly understood that she had done something she should not have done and wanted to hide her conduct from the firm and the lender. This is clear from the email she sent to Landbay on 14 November 2024. She confirmed in the email that the documents had been signed and dated on 5 November 2024, when they had not. She knew this was not true and, in her representations, she accepts this was dishonest.

6.18.3 Ms Loveridge knew the purchase completed on 8 November 2024 and that the Help to Buy bonus had not been applied for before completion. She knew that by instructing her assistant to submit an incorrect date she was trying to obtain the bonus for the client on false pretences.

6.18.4 Although she may say she didn't know how the scheme worked and was only trying to open up a line of enquiry, she was an experienced conveyancer and the firm confirmed she had worked on 68 files over the last three years involving the Help to Buy scheme. She signed a conveyancer's adherence agreement, and the Help to Buy guidance contains a telephone number, which Ms Loveridge could have used to ask a query.

6.19 On both client matters, it is reasonable to conclude that Ms Loveridge knew that false completion dates could and should not be entered.

6.20 I have found at allegations 1 and 2 that Ms Loveridge misled either her firm, the Help to Buy Scheme and/or the lender client. I also note that in relation to allegation 1, she does not deny doing so.

6.21 I must now consider if, by the objective standards of ordinary, decent people, they would consider Ms Loveridge's conduct to be dishonest. In my view and finding they would.

6.22 Given her knowledge at the time, I find that Ms Loveridge's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. Ordinary and decent people would not expect a member of the legal profession to:

6.22.1 Backdate documents and deliberately mislead the lender that the documents had been executed on the day of completion, when they had not.

6.22.2 Mislead a government scheme that completion had not yet taken place, when it had.

6.23 Ms Loveridge was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to fix the problem for the lender and the firm and for her client, so that they would not find out her mistake. As fee earner with overall responsibility of the files, Ms Loveridge failed to review the files to check they were in order before completion.

6.24 Ordinary and decent people would regard this as dishonest. Even if she was trying to solve a problem for a client and/or protect the firm. Ordinary and decent people would regard misleading people of the dates important documents were signed, or entering false completion dates, to be dishonest.

6.25 On the Help to Buy matter, Ms Loveridge said she was not dishonest because she was open and transparent with the compliance team. However, Ms Loveridge found out on the day of completion (8 November 2024) that the Help to Buy bonus had not been applied for. It was not until 14 November 2024, the day after she had submitted the false date that she notified the compliance team of her error. These are not the actions of someone acting with honesty.

6.26 It does not matter that Ms Loveridge did not enter the false completion dates herself, she instructed her assistants to provide inaccurate information, knowing it was false. Accordingly, I find the second limb of test satisfied, and that in each of the instances listed in paragraph 6.22 above, Ms Loveridge acted dishonestly.

Other information

Ms Loveridge requested a review of the decision to publish the Sec 43 Order on 16/10/25

This was considered by the Adjudication Panel and the decsion on 14/1/26 was to dismiss the review and uphold the FID.